Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Richard Primus

@richardprimus.bsky.social

6.9K followers 73 following 550 posts

Professor, University of Michigan Law School. Senior Editorial Adviser, Journal of American Constitutional History. I study the constitutional past and try to do my part for the rule of law in the present.

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · Mar 25

So after Paul Weiss makes a deal, they come for Jenner.

No sane person thinks it will stop there.

Three choices: fight now, fight later from a weaker position, or give up and let them do whatever they want. No other options.

46 470 2.2K

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 16h

Not sure exactly. But when it’s good, it’s great.

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 18h

"[T]hose who are familiar with the history of this country and know how often our great men have changed their views about the constitutional powers of Congress, will not be disposed to give great weight to opinions about such matters expressed in political debates."

Supreme Court of Nevada, 1865

Reposted by Richard Primus

Michelle Larsen @michellelarsen9.bsky.social · 1d

🇺🇸 To understand the constitutional stakes of the recent clash between presidential authority and state sovereignty over the deployment of National Guard personnel into Oregon despite a federal court ban, Wyoming Star spoke with @richardprimus.bsky.social:

wyomingstarnews.org/2025/10/08/e...

EXCLUSIVE: When Law Meets Power: Trump’s National Guard Gambit, Constitutional Line Crossed | Wyoming Star

When U.S. President Donald Trump ordered 300 California National Guard personnel into Portland, Oregon, despite a federal court ruling blocking his ... read at Wyoming Star. Stay informed with expert ...

wyomingstarnews.org

1 2

Reposted by Richard Primus

Noah Rosenblum @narosenblum.bsky.social · 1d

Very much appreciate @richardre.bsky.social’s thoughtful post. As @andreascoseriakatz.bsky.social, @janemanners.bsky.social and I have recently argued, there is irreducible contest in the early republic on at least some of these questions. But we can map the bounds of that dissensus. (1/2)

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 1d

Worth reading: @richardre.bsky.social on historical ambiguity with respect to the removal power (with reference to @jdmortenson.bsky.social).

blog.dividedargument.com/p/does-histo...

Does History Defeat Removal Doctrine?

With Special Attention to Professors Mortenson and Nelson

blog.dividedargument.com

1 4 8

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 1d

Worth reading: @richardre.bsky.social on historical ambiguity with respect to the removal power (with reference to @jdmortenson.bsky.social).

blog.dividedargument.com/p/does-histo...

Does History Defeat Removal Doctrine?

With Special Attention to Professors Mortenson and Nelson

blog.dividedargument.com

1 1

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 1d

Now ok?

2 1

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 1d

Sorry.

I should know better.

1 1

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 1d

I’m going to enjoy this evening like there’s no tomorrow. (Because…)

#GoCubsGo

1 3

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 1d

Because there has been a judicial ruling against DJT in Portland. It could be Chicago, too, if that happens there.

1 1

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

The Battle of Portland—the conflict over whether a president can subject a basically peaceful, law-abiding community within the U.S. to armed occupation just by making things up—may become one of the most consequential showdowns in our constitutional history.

1 16 64

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

Bad news, good news:

1) Yes, it got 20 degrees colder right in time for Sukot.

2) Yes, I’m shaking my lulav regularly. So everything’s going to be fine.

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

I buy coffee beans every couple of months in five-pound bags. Same vendor, same blend, same product.

The bag I just bought is 38% more expensive than the bag I bought thirteen months ago.

2 1 5

Reposted by Richard Primus

Greg Sargent @gregsargent.bsky.social · 3d

JB Pritzker and Gavin Newsom are doing something new and important: They understand Stephen Miller's theory of fascist power politics, and they've developed a theory on how to combat it. More Dems need to reckon with Miller's understanding of the moment.

New from me:
newrepublic.com/article/2014...

Inside Stephen Miller’s Secret Plan to Normalize Trump’s Dictator Rule

He wants to supercharge searing civil tensions to get low-information voters to embrace their inner authoritarian. Exactly two Democrats appear to fully grasp this.

newrepublic.com

140 1.5K 3.7K

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

Thanks Marty

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

This is a general point. It’s not just about the deployment of troops. So it matters even if in this context the president can win other cases on other grounds.

(5/5) (end)

2 11

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

(I’m not saying the courts can save the Republic if they make that shift. I’m saying I know some things about what happens if they don’t.)

(4/5)

1 1 10

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

That’s important. If the courts are going to put up any meaningful resistance to lawless executive behavior, they’re going to need to stop giving DJT lies a free pass and call it the benefit of the “doubt.”

(3/5)

2 4 20

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

…the bigger significance of the Oregon decision, it seems to me, was the (Trump-appointed) judge’s willingness to say that the Administration is saying things that are just flatly untrue, such that it loses the case even on a deferential standard.

(2/5)

1 3 21

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 2d

Re National Guard deployments: @jacklgoldsmith.bsky.social says the Oregon TRO is less significant than people are saying, b/c DJT has other & more powerful tools than s.12406, such that if he wants to deploy troops, he'll be able to.

I think he's right about that part.

But...

(1/5)

2 5 14

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 4d

That doesn’t affect the outcome. But it’s still good to get the analysis right.

(18/18) (end)

1 1 8

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 4d

If Congress under the Militia Clause has the power to authorize the president to federal state Nat’l Guards—which nobody here disputes—then the relevant power is vested in the United States, and the 10th Amendment isn’t in point.

(17/18)

1 1 9

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 4d

The district court may be right that DJT’s action is unconstitutional because it’s ultra vires. But that’s a Youngstown reason, not a 10th Amendment reason.

(16/18)

1 1 8

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 4d

The court ruled that the federalization of the OR Guard violated the 10th Amendment, b/c DJT acted without any direct constitutional authority and also beyond the scope of any congressional delegation.

(15/18)

1 2 7

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 4d

Now, for the technically minded: for completeness, I’ll mention that I think the court’s reasoning on its second rationale—the constitutional part—is muddled, though it gets to the right answer.

(14/18)

1 2 9

Richard Primus @richardprimus.bsky.social · 4d

We need more courts to be willing to do this simple and correct thing. To say that he's not acting in good faith and that what he's saying isn't so. (And the same for the executive branch personnel who speak for him.)

(13/18)

1 8 24